New AronRa debate. It was like watching someone punch an infant (intellectually of course):

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20

Did you just read the title and just post without watching the video? Look at which forum you're in and discuss the video possibly?

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20

Honestly, this was one of the worst debates I have ever watched. John Lepp did an introduction, than AronRa made a rebuttal, than they went into Lepp just questioning AronRa. How did they agree to this format? This is such a ridiculous format to a debate. It reminded me of a court trial more than a debate.

In addition, the debate question has to be one of the worst I have ever seen. How can one claim a deity is the source of anything without first showing that there is such a thing as a deity. At 1:16:30 into the debate Lepp used that to is advantage by saying he does not have to show that a god exists to establish whether a god is the source of good. I believe the format of this debate naturally leads to one thinking that. The way it was structured and the debate question itself already presupposes that both parties agreed there is at least something they could call a god out there. It would not surprise me to find out people that are not familiar with AronRa walked into (and may have left) from this debate thinking that.

IMO, Aron has this problem in debates where he gets stuck in the minutiae of trying to define terms (which is important but it should be done before you start the debate if possible) and he sometimes commits fallacies of his own (asking the crowd if anyone was convinced at one point in the video). It's the same problem I've seen him have in other discussions/debates like the Bob Dutko discussion.

Lepp starts this whole thing off by reading from a piece a paper, which already told me he's going to be a terrible public speaker. On top of that, he used rehashed arguments that have been refuted hundreds and thousands of times which resulted in a boring exchange. Lepp also ended this entire thing on "I can't give evidence, so here's my personal testimony," after he clearly had run out of talking points to read from his piece of paper.

Overall, it's entertaining to watch if you haven't played Creationist Bingo but in the end it was a pretty sad exchange.

EDIT: I actually rewatched it again and Aron does mention they agreed to definitions that Lepp began changing when he realized how dumb his argument is. Lepp spends most of the discussion exclaiming his argument is valid, except he never gets challenged or goes into on the soundness of the argument. Trying to logic a god into existence is pure navel gazing...

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20